939-WP-4451-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 939 WRIT PETITION NO. 4451 OF 2025 VYANKAT PANDURANG JATURE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS .… Mr. D. R. Kale and Mr. A. K. Jaiswal, Advocates for the Petitioner Ms S. S. Joshi, AGP for the Respondent – State .… CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 03.04.2025 PER COURT :- . The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 10.04.2024 (Exhibit-C), whereby a proposal for allotment of Shalarth I.D. to him, has been turned down on the ground that he is not TET qualified, and it is a minority institute. 2. We have heard both the sides. 3. The issue as regards mandatory nature of the TET, particularly, to the minority institutes being mandatory as concluded by the Division Bench of this court is under challenge 1 of 3 2025:BHC-AUG:10424-DB (( 2 )) 939-WP-4451-2025 before this Court. In all such similar matters, this court has been consistently directing the allotment of ‘Shalarth-I.Ds’, pursuant to the earlier approvals on making the petitioners concerned undertake to be bound by the decision/final outcome of the matter before the Supreme Court. We follow the same course. 4. The writ petition is allowed partly. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. 5. The petitioner shall submit an undertaking on affidavit duly sworn before the Registrar (Judicial) of this court mentioning that he would be abided by the final decision to be taken by the Supreme Court, and produces its copy before respondent No.3 Education Officer (Primary), who shall thereafter undertake necessary process by making a proposal to respondent No.2 - Deputy Director of Education for allotment of Shalarth I.D. 6. Considering the above, the proposal of the petitioner would be considered for allotment of the ‘Shalarth-ID’ on its own merits, save and except, the reason that he is not TET qualified. Needless to state, the proposal would be decided within 30 days after the submissions of the undertaking. 2 of 3 (( 3 )) 939-WP-4451-2025 7. If an adverse order is passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by which the teachers are covered by clause (a), the State Government would not recover the salaries already paid to the petitioner since he would have earned his salary by performing the duties. 8. In the event the petitioner is protected by the Supreme Court’s conclusions and is to be treated as qualified to continue in employment, the petitioner would be entitled for all service benefits like promotions, increments, etc. 9. Writ Petition, therefore, stands disposed of. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] SMS 3 of 3